Taken from www.thecampussocialite.com

Since it seems to never rain but pour, the past week has landed us with not one but two instances of mansplaining on the topic of sexual assault with a particular emphasis on giving consent while drunk.

First up is an opinion piece by Peter Berkowitz published in the Wall Street Journal on the 20^th. In it, he discusses a letter issued by the Obama administration and addressed to colleges and universities that details guidelines for dealing with sexual assault accusations. The letter, among other things, encourages schools to take allegations more seriously, discourages direct cross-examination of the victim by the accuser, and requires that the allegations be reviewed by a disciplinary board consisting of faculty and administration.

To any rational thinking human being, this sounds like a major step forward. Sexual assault and rape are ridiculously underreported, and campus police forces in particular have a sketchy track record when it comes to appropriately responding to reports of rape and assault. This directive would foster an environment in which victims would feel more inclined to come forward, and would have a higher chance of being heard.

But that’s not the conclusion that Berkowitz draws. For him, this directive is not a means to make the college experience safer for everyone, but an evil plot schemed by radical feminists to ruin the lives of unsuspecting men. To do this, he makes quite a few astounding leaps (not the least of which is the idea that the Obama administration likes to cater to radical feminists).

Berkowitz writes,

“The consequences for a wrongly convicted student are devastating: Not only is he likely to be expelled, but he may well be barred from graduate or professional school and certain government agencies, suffer irreparable damage to his reputation, and still be exposed to criminal prosecution”.

Truly, it would be horrific for anyone to have to deal with any sort of a false criminal accusation. However, Berkowitz addresses this point without ever considering the thousands of rape survivors who have never received any justice (and consequently the thousands of rapists who got off scott free). For someone who claims to be so concerned about justice, that seems like an odd point to neglect. He reveals the basic flaw of his argument when he writes this:

“Where are the professors of history, political science and law who will insist clearly and in public that due process is a fundamental component of American political institutions and culture, a cornerstone of our legal system, and indispensable in a free society to the fair administration of justice?”

To Berkowitz, clearly, this directive presents a slanting of the judiciary process towards the victim and their allegations. However, the point he seems to miss is that this directive is meant to correct a currently existing bias towards the accused. This directive is not meant to ensure that countless innocent college students will be punished for crimes they did not commit. It is meant to ensure that countless violated college students will have a better chance of receiving the justice they deserve.

What increases Berkowitz’s concern is what he sees as an ambiguity in the matters of consent when it is combined with alcohol consumption. He writes,

“On campus, where casual sex is celebrated and is frequently fueled by alcohol, the ambiguity that often attends sexual encounters is heightened and the risk of error in rape cases is increased”.

In this misunderstanding of what consent means, he is not alone, but is joined by, amongst others, one Roland Hulme who wrote an article entitled Alcohol & Consent: Why the Double Standard.

In his opinion piece, Hulme muses on recent tabloid stories involving celebrities having drunken sex. One example was the discussion over Bristol Palin’s description of her first sex in her autobiography, which was (quite aptly) interpreted as rape by some. Hulme however makes the argument that, as long as you are still conscious, you are still responsible for your own actions and thus can be taken at your word when you say “yes” to sex (or, don’t say “no”, or don’t kick and scream … whatever).

“In fact, in almost every aspect of life, being blacked-out, stumbling drunk does not relieve you of responsibility for the actions you take or the decisions you make; except in this ridiculous double standard of sexual consent.”

The problem with this argument is that Humle is talking consistently and exclusively of the personal responsibility of the person getting ridiculously wasted, and NOT of the person choosing to take advantage of them. While, yes, it would have been a smarter idea to not get drunk, or to at least not get drunk around people you cannot trust, that does not give anyone else the permission to abandon their own personal responsibility to not take advantage of others. If you are choosing to sleep with the person who’s slurring their words and can’t walk in a straight line, you are choosing to engage with someone who is clearly in an altered state of consciousness and who may not be able to make decisions anymore.

All philosophical waxing aside, many States in the US have actual laws in place that state that someone who is intoxicated cannot give consent. So even if you are sure that the drunken person in front of you really, really means it when they say “yes”, you may still want to hold off on sleeping with them.

What Hulme is doing, underneath all of the appeals to rational thinking and personal responsibility, is buying into the same old thinking of victim-blaming that we are surrounded with daily: if you don’t want to run the risk of getting raped, don’t get drunk. I wish we could finally turn this around, so it says that if you don’t want to be accused of rape, you shouldn’t rape. If the person in front if you cannot remember their own name, leave it be – they probably cannot give meaningful consent. And this is not about party-pooping, ruining the lives of male college students or about declaring women unfit for drinking. It’s about understanding what consent is and what it is not, and about always making sure to get and give enthusiastic consent.

Erica Jong’s recent New York Times opinion piece “Is Sex Passé?” argues that her daughter’s generation idealizes monogamy and seeks control over the sexual freedom explored during her mother’s generation.

Dragging young feminists into the debate, Jung continues:

Lust for control fuels our current obsession with the deficit, our rejection of passion, our undoing of women’s rights. How far will we go in destroying women’s equality before a new generation of feminists wakes up? This time we hope those feminists will be of both genders and that men will understand how much equality benefits them.

Kudos for recognizing the need to welcome and incorporate men into the feminist cause. But does a desire for greater sexual control really mean a loss of lust or destruction to women’s equality?

Feminists are currently confronted with a landscape where women are constantly told have sex, enjoy it, but do it on your own terms. Understandably, in a world where girls are constantly taught how to be sexy but rarely sexual, this a confusing prospect. Men are told that no means no, but not given many more words of wisdom in navigating sexuality that isn’t mechanical in nature.

Our generation still enjoys one night stands and sexuality in the way boldly characterized in the pages of Jong’s 1973 novel Fear of Flying. I know plenty of lesbians who have hooked up in bathroom stalls on ladies nights and were quite proud and thrilled by the experience. Shows like “The Real L Word” open up the door to queer sex and sexuality for many who may not have any insight into that world. Katha Pollitt’s explains in her response to Jong’s article in The Nation,

there is really no evidence that young women, of whatever class, educational level or ethnicity, married or single, mothers or not, are less interested in sex than comparable women were in 1973, let alone in the 1950s.

It’s now a common expectation that both partners should be enjoying sex and exploring their own sexuality. Finally LGBT sex is becoming part of the conversation in a measurable way. The right to say yes, no, where and how sexually is among one of the rights most hard fought for by feminists.

And control is the key to communicating these desires. Control isn’t boring, or stale but rather it’s what allows for trust and growth. Control allows both partners to know their lines and to speak them, whatever they may be. For some control is a word used in BDSM play. For some control is discussing which body parts are sexually off limits during a time of physical transition.

Repression of reproductive rights is a terrifying move by those who are greatly opposed to allowing women and their partners control of their own reproductive decisions. Freedoms for women hinge largely on their ability to control and communicate own their choices and actions.

So to Erica Jong I say: young feminists are awake, thankful for the work that has been done by those before them and building a future with even more feminist freedoms.

Ahhh, the world of advertising: a world where false “ideals” that have long been outgrown by our progressive, intelligent minds are still shamelessly perpetuated; a world where, because brevity and memorability of the message is tantamount, offensive stereotypes serve as shorthand and run rampant; a world where political headway can be usurped and hard-won power can be coopted for marketers’ gain.

Such is the case in a recently released series of advertisements for Summer’s Eve douches entitled “Hail to the V.” Wrapped in a shiny veneer that seems to celebrate the vagina, a body part once so taboo its mere mention would be considered distasteful, a woman might at first find the galvanizing tone of these ads to offer a refreshing perspective. That is, a woman who is less media-literate than we readers of the WIYL blog. We sex-positive feminist-theory-informed critical thinkers know better, don’t we? We know full well that the true intent of these ads is to create and heighten anxiety about the (un)cleanliness of a self-cleaning body part. We know full well that the depictions of warring men and the passive female onlooker propagate absurd stereotypes and reinforce outdated sexist narratives. We know full well that the different versions of the ad produced for African American women and for Latina women are laden with racist assumptions that patronize the various facets of their target market. And we know full well that Summer’s Eve, owned by the C.B. Fleet Company, cares not for women’s triumph over the shame of naming and celebrating our vaginas, but rather for the dollars raked in by sales of a useless and unhealthy product.

But every once in a while, an advertisement breaks the mold. In a mere 30-60 seconds a message can cut through the crap through the use of humor, satire, edginess, and just plain bad-assness. And so, for my first blog post for Where Is Your Line, I’d like to highlight an ad that does just that by depicting a young woman drawing her line : Greatest Condom Commercial Ever

This ad rocks for so many reasons. Okay, so it’s not exactly an ad, but it delivers the same punch and shows the potential impact of thoughtful advertising. Its intent as a public service message is to encourage MTVs audience of teens and young adults to insist on wearing condoms when engaging in intercourse. It strikes me from time to time how strange it is that MTV can get away with speaking frankly about sex (and other taboo subjects) directly to young people in a way that educators are strictly forbidden from. When our institutions of learning are prohibited from keeping up with our media, it’s no wonder young people are confused. For its forthrightness about safe sex, I give this ad a major thumbs up.

And what’s even cooler? The empowered agent in this scenario is the woman! Although a young woman, perhaps college-age if I were to guess from the visual clues, this woman delivers the speech of a lifetime when she tells her potential sex partner no holds barred that his bullshit excuses for not wanting to wear a condom cost him the distinct privilege of getting it on with her! Can you imagine what a fabulous world we would live in if more young women actually exhibited the sex positive sex smart attitude this young woman demonstrates? How many times do I wish I had had the ovaries to give a speech like that?! But nobody was teaching me that skill when I was her age. Not my media, and certainly not my sex education curriculum.

Ahhh, the world of advertising. One mustn’t underestimate its role in creating and reflecting our culture and its values. Call me a wishful thinker, but I wonder if perhaps this short little snippet of a message, packing a punch with its fearless and funny portrayal of a shame-free sexual young woman, could be among the first of many examples of we feminists using culture to change culture. Founder and CEO of Breakthrough Mallika Dutt, who I had the privilege of seeing at the recent Women and Power Retreat at the OMEGA Institute, is the queen of this technique in India. Ignoring naysayers she embarked on an innovative mission to produce music videos for popular consumption that embody anti-domestic-violence messages. For real! And they are amazing. Her music videos, advertisements for the album Mann ke Manjeere: An Album of Women’s Dreams are also stand-alone artistic and social statements, and they have received widespread acclaim. The album even won the 2001 National Screen Award in India for best music video. Speaking the language of the populace, the videos are getting important messages out into the culture to CHANGE the culture by USING the culture’s mass medium.

For the love of Goddess, America, let’s get on board with this concept! It’s about time we harnessed the outlets to which people pay attention, and we have important work to do. It can begin with a funny portrayal of empowered female sexuality, and as Dutt has proven, it can even be effective to bring domestic violence into the public dialogue in a productive and heartfelt way. There will still be ridiculous attempts to usurp messages of female empowerment, like “Hail to the V,” but fortunately, we are smart enough to know the difference between social good and commodification. We can outsmart the media, use the very tools that have been used against us, and we can change our culture.

One quick note – if you haven’t checked out Nancy’s new film xoxosms, about digital intimacy and Love 2.0  – you should! Pledge support now!

So without further ado…

Here’s brainy and beautiful Dr. Logan Levkoff, sexuality educator, Sexologist, and author, committed to a future of sex-positive education and healthy relationships.

Dr. Levkoff encourages honest conversation about sexuality and the role it plays in American culture. She makes it clear that sex and sexuality are not “dirty” words; she works to create an environment where people feel comfortable asking (and getting answers to) their most personal questions. Dr Levkoff empowers children, adolescents, and adults to embrace their sexuality and challenge the impractical, and often unhealthy, messages that they are exposed to.

Dr. Levkoff is the author of Third Base Ain’t What it Used to Be: What Your Kids are Learning About Sex Today and How to Teach Them to Become Sexually Healthy Adults (NAL/Penguin, October 2007), which helps parents to understand the role sexuality plays in their children’s lives and empowers parents to become better at-home sexuality educators.

How did you first get involved in sex-education? Did it begin in college, or high school, and how did your personal experiences play into your decision?

I started as a peer hiv and AIDS educator in the 10th grade. My parents enrolled me in our town’s first program. So, technically, my foray into sex education wasn’t of my own doing, but it couldn’t have been a better fit for me. As a fifteen year old who hadsn’t had sex of any kind, it was easy for me to talk about sex and sexuality. When I finally did have “sex” for the first time, I was surprised that it was even easier for me to talk about sex. Instead of feeling insecure about my own decisions, I embraced them. By the time I got to college, though, I found myself and my girlfriends (smart, sophisticated women) making stupid decisions about sex. And I don’t mean not having safer sex. We were all using physical protection, but we weren’t emotionally protected. We were in these one-sided relationships where we weren’t getting pleasure, reciprocation and sex felt like a chore – a means of avoiding an argument rather than an act between mutually respectful partners. It was that fine line between emotional abuse and having a generally shitty partner. It was the that I knew I had a mission. I wanted to help women find their voice – to speak up for their emotional and physical pleasure and protection.

You’ve done a lot of work in accessible media, particularly television. That’s interesting to me considering the consistently poor representations of teen sexuality and fear-mongering about sex – is this part of your strategy to get a sex-positive message out? Can you talk a little bit more about how media is especially important to your work?

There is no question that media messages about sex and sexuality are often inaccurate, biased, or exploitative. But I have found that in my own small way, I try to make a difference in that medium. Yes, media is essential to my work. I am privileged to get the opportunity to be on television so I am committed to getting a sex-positive and sexually healthy message across no matter where I am appearing (and yes, I will play in the lion’s den – I love debating on Fox News. It is a thrill and a pleasure, albeit totally frustrating.) But the media is important for me because it allows me to educate far beyond my classroom. I chose this profession so that I could speak out for issues and people that don’t always have a voice. And because I have a certain set of credentials and I look a certain way (and you can’t see my tattoos on television), I get an opportunity to be in public eye. I’m not saying that it’s right, it’s pretty damn pathetic, but I would be lying if I didn’t acknowledge it. That being said, I will always use that privilege to do what’s right. And I will always take one for the team.

What do you think is the biggest misconception about young people and sex? Do you thing the sex panic of the older generation is legitimate? What do you think it stems from?

The biggest? Young people aren’t entitled to sex. Exploring your sexuality (regardless of whether or not you engage in any sex behaviors) is an essential part of adolescence. It’s as if adults have forgotten what that time was line. Sure, sex comes with responsibilities. But if you give teens the tools to make good decisions, they will use those tools.

Do you think there’s a connection between ‘hook-up’ culture and teen domestic/dating violence? How can this be remedied in a sex-positive way?

In my opinion, the sexual double standard and parent’s perpetuation of it (ie. suggesting that boys are only after one thing, omitting girl’s desire from the discussion, encouraging male experimentation but being overprotective of girls, suggesting to boys – again by omission- that they can’t be emotionally connected to someone else) creates an environment where girls believe that someone else “makes” them sexual – that they aren’t innately sexual. From there, it is easy to understand why there are so many unhealthy relationships. Girls are rarely taught to proudly own their decisions about sex, to speak up, or to have a voice regarding their sexuality. (They’ve never been told they even have a sexuality). If we don’t speak up, we don’t get the pleasure or protection we need and we certainly don’t get equality, respect and reciprocation in our relationships.

What are your hopes for Obama’s administration regarding attitudes towards sex-education? Where do you think it will go and what do you think are potential problems?

I am fearful still for the future of sex education. The house’s unconscionable vote to defund planned parenthood is a perfect example of how women’s health, sexuality and respect for all persons is not a priority for our government.

There’s been a lot of talk on our blog about sex-positivity being a mere ‘fantasy’ because of the intersections of sexuality with other oppressions such as race, motherhood etc, and the fact that sex seems so imbued in sexist views of male dominance and female submission. Can you talk a little bit about how you feel sex-positive activism is working, where it’s going and how effective it is?

Sex positivity isn’t a fantasy. For those of us who perpetuate it, it is very very real. That doesn’t mean that it is challenge-free, but nothing worth fighting for is. But we need to keep raising awareness, educating, challenging unequal message, and hopefully our youth will then feel empowered to challenge the beliefs of the generations before them. Look, I’m realistic. The battle isnt’ going to end any time soon. But while I’m here, I’m committed to fighting it.

MTV’s Skins has drummed up some serious controversy thanks to a wildly popular UK predecessor, an eye-catching advertising campaign and consciously salacious storylines. The Parents’ Television Council  and reviewers alike are up in arms about the more explicit nature of the series, which airs on a channel that daily attracts millions of impressionable teen viewers. Advertisers have already pulled out of Skins, in fact, for fear that underage actors engaging in simulated sex and drinking in just about every episode could be construed as child pornography.

As with any movie or series that depicts sex, there is also always that conversation about whether it’s gratuitous or not. In regards to the UK Skins, Feministing’s “7 feminist reasons” is worth checking out to understand how the show successfully toed that line:

6. Teen sex is portrayed with nuance and respect and without hand-wringing and slut-shaming. The lack of moralizing extends to sex as well. And there’s a lot of it in Skins. Some sex is between couples, some is between friends, some is between strangers. Some is emotionally fulfilling, some isn’t. Some is physically satisfying, some isn’t. The girls are just as likely to have casual sex as the guys, and the guys are just as likely to want a relationship as the girls. (Suffice it to say, Skins doesn’t buy into any myths about oxytocin.) Perhaps even more importantly, in Skins, characters of both genders have both committed and casual sex at different times. Kinda like in real life! And because neither guys or girls are defined by their sexual behavior, that’s not at all strange. Skins recognizes that a girl who’s been having lots of emotionally meaningless sex can still get chills when she touches the hand of the boy she’s falling for. As Samhita wrote yesterday, “We all have feelings and we all like to fuck…Deal with it.” And Skins deals with it quite nicely.

Really, I couldn’t have said it better. Yes, Skins can be graphic, but its inclusion of sex and drugs often feel like realistic developments for these teen characters rather than gratuitousness displays of wanton behavior. There seems to be something about showing teens engaging in risque acts that immediately makes it unacceptable, even if it’s realistic and complex.

Much criticism surrounding MTV’s Skins, ironically, is that it is gratuitous even after MTV watered it down from the original UK version. Ms. Magazine‘s blog, in fact, calls the first episode out as sexist. But the beauty of television is that the story and characters don’t stop at the first episode: if MTV plays its cards right, it could follow in the steps of the UK version and create a nuanced, layered world that actually goes in-depth on teen issues rather than stigmatize sex a la Secret Life of the American Teenager.

…OR it could be a massive disappointment and make no strides whatsoever. But only time will tell.

When I say, “my line is all about me, myself, and I!” I mean it. I mean that my line starts right where I begin to doubt whether or not I want to do something. My line is all about what makes me feel comfortable, because as much as I may want to make my partner happy, I should never have to do something I do not want to do. My perfect sexual encounter involves never having to feel like I have to sacrifice my wants for the needs of another. In order to fully enjoy myself, I have to be able to stop when I need to. In order to be a full on participant, and not just “let it happen”, I have to be able to stop when I need to. That’s why, when it comes to my line, it’s all about me.

6 in the morning, Client, music video

‘much more shy – and basically more human than the media narrative would have you think’.

In a world where sexuality and sex have become a necessary tools not only in the media, but in politics, the news cycle, and discussions of gender equality, it is important to remember that porn does not, as Natasha Vargas-Cooper claims in The Atlantic, have

‘a pervasiveness and influence on the culture at large’

, rather it is a reflection of the traces of colonial and gendered histories that remain a part of our culture today. Indeed, although Vargas-Cooper somewhat acknowledges this dialectic between accepted cultural norms and history, she also sees male sexuality as a ‘dark force streaked with aggression’ in its ‘natural’ state – that sexuality at its core is bestial and so essentially has more detrimental consequences for women than it does for men. For her, sex-positivity and its egalitarian views of sex is simply a ‘utopian pretension’.

Lauren’s post on Post-Partum Sex Positivity reminds us that the implementation of the ideals of sex-positivity are still problematic, and can, at its worst, be discriminatory and non-inclusive. The recent Nicki Blue virginity-cam debate surrounding kink.com’s marketing decision in the recording of her first experience of vaginal penetration only demonstrates how it can be difficult to reconcile sex-positivity with feminism and vice versa. Clark-Flory’s article suggest that the vulnerability we feel about our sexual preferences, even in our most intimate relationships, mean that despite existing in the age of the modern confessional, real life can be harder to negotiate and

‘sex [in porn and the media] really doesn’t change that much’.

Indeed, where it’s easy for complete strangers to read about your lunch preferences on twitter, and hard-core pornography, as is instantly accessible online, what does it mean that we can get off on videos of S/M sex and double penetration, but feel shyness about sharing these desires with our partners? Is sex-positivity, itself, as Vargos-Cooper seems to suggest, our own unattainable sexual fantasy?

When I think about why I first chose to enter the sex industry, one in which sexism and the objectification of women seems to be the most exaggerated and unapologetic, I remember being conscious of the fact that I was a) embodying a fantasy, particularly as an asian woman who looks younger than her age b) exploiting these oppressive forces for my own financial and personal gain. When you’re working hours in platform heels and a corset, sex isn’t a fantasy, it becomes work, reality, just another job. But initially, to someone else, you’re not real. You’re a figment of the deep part of their imagination, whether they want you to smoke cigarettes into their eyes or smack you because you’re a naughty girl. I’ve watched the moment a first-time customer realises that I’m a person, doing a job – and it came when I elaborated on necessary points of consent for a safe experience, even if it was something as simple as safe words. Being a sex worker, and especially an switch in an s/m dungeon points out to the owners of fantasies that reality can work in much a different way.

I refuse to believe sex-positivity is a fantasy because I know when fantasies are enacted in real life, they can deeply affects relationships and the way sexual activities function – for the better. To assume, like Vargas-Cooper that sex is essentially a reinforcement of ‘natural’ tropes of male dominance and female submission is a cop-out. No one said enforcing sex-positivity was easy. No one said it was going to happen in an instant, no, it requires self-reflection, openness, and slow cultural change. And consent is the element that, when inserted, changes everything It can blur the lines between fantasy and reality. It can make one realise that we have a long way to go despite what the media tells us. And it can make for a fulfilling and egalitarian relationship even if we engage in performances of male dominance and female submission. Sexism can exist in our desires because of the societal structures within which we were raised, and the concepts we’ve inevitably internalised – like I’ve said before, it’s how we engage in those activities that make a difference. A consensual relationship is an egalitarian one, even if what you’re enacting appears to perpetuate the age-old stereotype of the ‘brutal male’ and ‘resisting female’.

What Clark-Flory points out in her post is a ‘shyness’ that goes along with guilt from watching porn – I know from my experiences with partners that in this modern age, that guilt can exist because of the feeling that one is exploiting women, or from wanting to completely separate fantasy from reality because the fantasy seems to be oppressive, or too violent, or too ‘weird’ to share with a real-life partner. To me, however, that seems to be progress. Because it brings up the fact that people are holding on to old misconceptions about porn-watching that need to be changed – but they’re aware, and feeling guilty about their attraction to sexist, extreme, or what they would consider non-respectful pornographic tropes. The guilt doesn’t stem from the porn-watching in and of itself, but the sex-positive view that the separation of fantasy and real-life is something that can be detrimental, and in the worse case, border on non-disclosure in a consensual, real life relationship. I’m not saying that people aren’t entitled to watch porn, or that they have to disclose all the details of their porn-watching habits to their partners. But being open about the type of porn you watch and communicating about how you want porn to play into your relationship, whether as something mostly separate from you and your partner’s sexual life, or something that can be played with, is a step in the right direction – both of these can suddenly make your sexual fantasies a part of reality – even if that’s all they are – fantasies.

Sexual shame, is unfortunately, something that all of us struggle with in our culture every day – particularly in a world where we’re trying to move forward in terms of feminism and sex positivity – there’s suddenly much more to worry about. Consent, and open communication is the only way forward – and I’m not saying these things aren’t hard, but they can be done, and we’re on our way. Let’s not ever give up.

Hi everyone, my name is Jordana! I am a Jersey Girl born & raised. In the time between fist pumping and refusing to pump gas, I am finishing up my Masters in Social Work at Rutgers.

I stumbled upon this site through a Tweet from Jessica Valenti, author of the Purity Myth – which I highly recommend you buy/download/borrow from your local library or friend.  I am a strong willed, opinionated lady who doesn’t mind speaking up for herself, so this blog was intriguing.

Initially, I thought I had no connection to The Line. I mean, I have a line… but, I thought, it’s never really been crossed. Maybe I’m just lucky that when I have chosen to kick a guy out of bed he’s left with his tail between his legs never to call again (and good riddance buddy!) Then, I remembered my recent conversation about Speak, another book you should pick up. It discusses the year following a freshman in high school’s rape, and has unfortunately been challenged in various contexts because of its controversial truths – and defended strongly by the feminist community. And remembering reading Speak, I remembered why am I who I am today.

How was it that I got the balls (or ovaries if you will) to say leave?  I was 15. He was 17, and he had a car, which made him so dreamy. He taught me all those things that seem grown at 15:  like how to smoke a cigarette. Then one night, in the back of said awesome vehicle, right on the edge of what was renamed “Date Rape Park” by people in school… he tried every maneuver he could conjure to talk me into the most bad girl of adventures: losing my v-card right then and there.

I froze. I kept saying I wasn’t interested. Finally, as I have annoyingly over-protective parents I screamed “OMG! I was supposed to be home 15 minutes ago – Get me home NOW!” And I got lucky because that was enough. How I managed to have him move away from me, put on pants and take me home I’ve never quite figured out.

After that night, I didn’t want to see him ever again – and since we went to different high schools that was easy.  The hard part was the weird feeling I was left with. I had become so engrossed in the idea of a boy making me “cool”/ a badass that I didn’t think at all about me. It took some learning, loving, and growing up but I’ve learned I can be badass all by myself. My line is where I want it to be, when I want it to be there, and I’m not afraid to tell you – will you listen?

This post originally appeared online at The Examiner.

Today the Woodhull Freedom Foundation, a non-profit dedicated to affirming sexual freedom as a fundamental human right, is celebrating Sexual Freedom Day with an all-day event at the National Press Club in Washington, DC.

Sexual Freedom Day highlights “the intersections between government policy and lawmaking, marriage, reproductive rights, personal relationships, child rearing, sexual orientation, gender identification, sexual expression, and sexual practice,” with Panelists including Bil Browning, Kenyon Farrow, Nina Hartley, Amber Hollibaugh, Mark Kernes, Ricci Levy, Dan Massey, Mia Mingus, Zack Rosen, RJ Thompson, Carmen Vasquez, Lawrence Walters, Lisa Weiner-Mahfuz, and Elizabeth Wood.

The Woodhull Freedom Foundation will also distribute its annual Vicki Awards today, given to individuals or organizations whose work and/or life embodies the mission and vision of the Woodhull Freedom Foundation to affirm sexual freedom as a fundamental human right. This year’s honorees are Bina Aspen & Martine Rothblatt, Dr. Deborah Taj Anapol, Kushaba Moses Mworeko, and Susan Wright.

• Rothblatt, CEO of United Therapeutics, one of the creators of Sirius Satellite Radio, and author of Your Life Or Mine: How Geoethics Can Resolve The Conflict Between Public And Private Interests In Xenotransplantation, is a male-to-female transsexual. She and her wife Bina Aspen are vocal advocates for transgender issues.
• Anapol is the founder of Love Without Limitsand author of Polyamory in the 21st Century (2010), Polyamory: The New Love Without Limits (1997) and The Seven Natural Laws of Love (2005) and cofounder of Loving More Magazine.
• Mworeko is a gay man and international gay rights activist from Uganda currently seeking asylum in the United States after his country introduced laws making it a crime not to report gays and calling for the execution of homosexual men and women.
• Wright is the founder of the National Coalition for Sexual Freedom and is a popular author of science fiction, art books, and pop-culture books.

Today’s events in DC conclude with w press conference at 3pm ET to release and discuss the foundation’s State of Sexual Freedom in the US, 2010 Report.

These are interesting times for sexual freedom, to be sure. This week alone…

• we’ve seen a Florida appellate court declare the state’s ban of adoption of children by “homosexuals” unconstitutional;
• watched Democrat leaders in the Senate drop the ball on the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell debate in the Senate (despite all of Lady Gaga’s best efforts and just days after a federal judge in California ruled the Clinton-era anti-gay military policy unconstititional);
• learned of the suicide death of 15 year-old teenager Billy Lucas in Greensburg, Indiana after he was bullied for perceptions that he was gay in a school where both his peers and school administrators were well aware of the constant bullying (check out powerful responses from Dan Savage’s new It Gets Better Project and Cyndi Lauper’s Give a Damn Project);
• discovered that although 97 percent of American teenagers receive some formal sex education, more than a third of them never hear anything about contraception;
• and observed as the Alliance for Open Society International (supported by the ACLU and 24 other organizations) sues the United States Agency for International Development over the devastating effects of USAID’s international policy against funding “any group or organization that does not have a policy explicitly opposing prostitution and sex trafficking.” Yes, folks, US involvement in the international war against the spread of HIV/AIDS is being waged, as a matter of policy since 2003, by refusing to support organizations engaging sex workers — the population most at risk of contracting and spreading infection — in the battle.

Next week we head into the American Library Association’s annual Banned Book Week, where almost all of this year’s most frequently challenged books are on the list specifically for content about sex and sexuality, and next month is National Coming Day (October 11).

Today, meanwhile, is a very good day to ask yourself: What are you doing to stand up for sexual freedom in your community, in the United States, and around the world?

Hey everyone! My name is Trisha, and I’m a new blogger and campaign member!

I’m a student, writer and retired sex-worker with a particular interest in the politics of poetic form. I live in Philadelphia and school at the University of Pennsylvania, where I study English Literature with a concentration in Gender, Culture and Society. I worked for literary non-profit organisations such as The Kelly Writers House and The Feminist Press, and produced conceptual work in collaboration with the Queer Voice exhibit at the Institute of Contemporary Art in Philadelphia.

I’m also the recipient of the Kerry Prize. The prize grant facilitated my creation of a hybrid book arts/zine project entitled ‘LIVE PAPER DOLLS,’ which was a collection of art and writing in response to the question ‘what does it mean to be a woman’- and that culminated in a panel discussion about textual practice, Riot Grrrl and the book object as flesh. I’m hoping to eventually work in development in order to facilitate feminist work, or- as Schiller would say- ‘the art of the beautiful and the still more difficult art of living’.

Currently, I’m running an interdisciplinary reading series (feminism/s) dedicated to the diversity of contemporary feminism and community-building for women in the arts.
I am an out and proud femme and submissive, and love everything grrly, grotesque, burlesque& poetic.